10‑06‑13 The Ethics of Undercover Journalism : Columbia Journalism Review

1/9www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_ethics_of_undercover_journalism.php?page=all

Monday, June 10, 2013. Last Update: Mon 2:55 PM EST Contact | Donate | Advertise

By Greg Marx

02:57 PM February 4, 2010

The Ethics of Undercover JournalismWhy journalists get squeamish over James O’Keefe’s tactics

When news broke in late January that James O’Keefe and three other men, two of whom

were costumed as telephone repairmen, had been arrested by federal authorities and

charged with “interfering” with the phone system at the New Orleans office of Sen. Mary

Landrieu, observers of all sorts shared a similar response: What were they thinking?

Thanks to a statement O’Keefe has posted at Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.come

and an interview he gave Monday night to Fox News’s Sean Hannity, we now have a

pretty good answer to that question. Landrieu had drawn the ire of some conservatives

for her participation in a deal that helped advance health care reform, and the anger

had grown amid claims that her office was avoiding calls from constituents. O’Keefe told

Hannity:

We wanted to get to the bottom of the claim that [Landrieu] was not answering

her phones, her phones were jammed. We wanted to find out why her

constituents couldn’t get through to her. We wanted to verify the reports.

And while O’Keefe has acknowledged that, “on reflection, I could have used a different

approach to this investigation,” he also told Hannity he was operating in an established

tradition: “We used the same tactics that investigative journalists have been using. In all

the videos I do, I pose as something I’m not to try to get to the bottom of the truth.”

During the interview, he and Hannity namechecked a few specific predecessors, among

them PrimeTime Live’s Food Lion investigation, 60 Minutes, 20/20, and Dateline NBC,

including its “To Catch a Predator” series.

Considering the extent to which O’Keefe’s activities are driven by political goals, it’s

debatable whether or not he really belongs to this family tree. But even taking him at his

word, lumping O’Keefe in with those programs doesn’t necessarily put him on the safe

ground he’s looking for. Journalism ethicists have long been wary of deceptive

undercover tactics that those programs (and others) use—and with good reason.

Overreliance on sting operations and subterfuge can weaken the public’s trust in the

media and compromise journalists’ claim to be truthtellers. Undercover reporting can be

a powerful tool, but it’s one to be used cautiously: against only the most important

targets, and even then only when accompanied by solid traditional reporting.

The field’s squeamishness with “lying to get the truth,” as the headline of a 2007

American Journalism Review article put it, is welldocumented. In the 1970s, the

Chicago SunTimes set up an elaborate sting operation at the Mirage Tavern to

document routine corruption in city agencies; the sting worked, but the paper’s Pulitzer

hopes were dashed, reportedly because Ben Bradlee and Eugene Patterson disapproved

Sign up for emails

ALSO BY GREG MARX

USP Notes: Medicaid expansion edition

USP Notes: NYT on Fix the Debt, ProPublicaon 'Democratic Grandmas'

Jim Tankersley joins The Washington Post

RELATED ARTICLES

The making of a meme –Journos get on boardthe Let’sWhackEntitlements train

Cracking open Congress–We need betterinsider reporting about the "fiscal cliff"

Exclusive excerpts: ‘The Gestation Period ofLlama (Or why I quit The Wall Street Journal)’

No, it’s not another housing bubble Hysteria inpockets of the press over a longawaited recovery

Journalistic generalization disorder DavidBrooks attacks, then defends, psychiatry’sshortcomings

Disability, Social Security, and the missingcontext As a trustees report comes out, a ThisAmerican Life piece provides an unfortunate example ofincomplete reporting

#Realtalk: The art of the interview Asking thehard questions about asking the hard questions

US lacks skepticism in national securityreportingThe Guardian US EIC explains why a British outletgot the scoop

@_FloridaManThis Twitter stream never gets old

Ailes unplugged“Roger Ailes doesn’t think homosexuals are out toget him”

Matt Drudge was right“Every citizen can be a reporter”

new | gift | renewSUBSCRIBE

The Industry Politics & Policy Business Science Culture Magazine Resources Search:

MOST COMMENTED TWITTERMOST POPULAR

10‑06‑13 The Ethics of Undercover Journalism : Columbia Journalism Review

2/9www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_ethics_of_undercover_journalism.php?page=all

of its methods. PrimeTime Live’s decision to have producers falsify resumes and smuggle

hidden cameras into a Food Lion grocery store sparked contentious litigation (an initial

$5.5 million jury verdict against ABC was reduced on appeal to $2) and drew two

articles in CJR (not online).

Most recently, Ken Silverstein, the acclaimed Washington editor of Harper’s, posed as a

foreign businessman to expose lobbyists’ willingness to represent unsavory clients.

Silverstein came back with a gripping story and had plenty of defenders, but institutions

like the Center for Public Integrity sided with The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz in

criticizing his methods.

In other words, press criticism of O’Keefe may reflect ideological disagreement in some

cases. More broadly, it no doubt reflects some schadenfreude from an institution he and

his patron Breitbart have conspicuously disdained. But it’s also consistent with the

wariness with which much of the media—especially the print media—has long viewed

undercover reporting.

There are practical reasons for that wariness. As other observers have noted, while the

use of deception in reporting can yield sensational results, it also lends the subject a

weapon to wield against the journalist. The readymade complaint: If the reporter has

forfeited the high ground of transparency and honesty, how can his conclusions be

trusted by the public? The fallout may not be limited to the case at hand. During the

Food Lion controversy, Marvin Kalb of Harvard’s Shorenstein Center worried that

widespread use of deception “demeans journalism and damages badly the journalist and

the public.” (This is not a theoretical problem. In announcing the verdict in the Food

Lion case, the jury foreman told ABC, “You didn’t have boundaries when you started this

investigation…. You kept pushing on the edges and pushing on the edges…. It was too

extensive and fraudulent.”)

To mitigate this concern, undercover reporters are urged take care to situate what they’ve

gleaned through deception in a structure of traditional reporting—to show that, unlike,

say, Punk’d or Candid Camera or even “To Catch a Predator,” the gimmick is not all

there is. Wherever one comes down on Silverstein’s work, one of the more effective

criticisms of it was that his original story never gave the lobbying firms he targeted an

opportunity to comment. A similar criticism applies to O’Keefe’s ACORN videos, which

made him a national figure—whatever malfeasance he may have uncovered at ACORN,

his failure to present his videos in any broader reportorial context made it difficult for

the national media to take his allegations seriously. (And when other journalists did look

into the story, they found that the footage, while containing some truly troubling

material, should not all be taken at face value.)

That’s not the only guideline for going undercover. While there are, appropriately, no

hardandfast rules or central authorities for journalism, a checklist drawn up by

Poynter’s Bob Steele in 1995 is often cited for guidance on this issue. A few points on the

list are probably too vague to be of much use, but the first two are valuable. They state

that deception and hidden cameras may be appropriate:

When the information obtained is of profound importance. It must be of vital

public interest, such as revealing great “system failure” at the top levels, or it

must prevent profound harm to individuals.

When all other alternatives for obtaining the same information have been

exhausted.

Whether something is of “profound importance” is obviously a matter of news judgment,

but there’s good reason to question O’Keefe’s. If his focus on ACORN was the product of

a worldview that vastly exaggerated that group’s practical political importance, his

decision that Landrieu’s phone system merited a hiddencamera investigation was even

more off the mark.

Public officials should be responsive to their constituents, and when credible concerns

First

Last

Address

City

Zip

Email

Day in, day outReminds me of editors I know

If you like the magazine, get the rest of the yearfor just $19.95 (6 issues in all).If not, simply write cancel on the bill and return

it. You will owe nothing.

State

CJR's Guide to Online News StartupsUptown Messenger – Hyperlocal news for aneighborhood in New Orleans

Who Owns WhatSelect a media company...

The Business of Digital JournalismA report from the Columbia University GraduateSchool of Journalism

Study GuidesQuestions and exercises for journalism students.

#RealTalkThe art of the interview – Asking the hardquestions about asking the hard questions

Minority ReportsMore than just marriage – A guide to coveringother issues that affect the LGBT community

Language CornerNew math – Keeping numbers simpler

The KickerDon’t miss: CJR on covering gay marriage – Thepanel event—which will be livestreamed oncjr.org—is in Washington, DC, on June 12, from 34:30 pm

10‑06‑13 The Ethics of Undercover Journalism : Columbia Journalism Review

3/9www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_ethics_of_undercover_journalism.php?page=all

are raised that they aren’t, the press should check them out. (In fact, as this story by

Alexandra Fenwick notes, reporters in Louisiana did look into those allegations, and

managed to do so without resorting to costumes or cell phone cameras.) But even if

O’Keefe’s suspicions about Landrieu turned out to be true, her actions would count as

little more than a goodgovernment misdemeanor. Deciding that they warranted

undercover treatment is a reflection of editorial judgment unconstrained by common

sense.

Of course, O’Keefe’s comment to Hannity—“In all the videos I do, I pose as something

I’m not”—suggests that he skipped this balancing test entirely. Attempts to reach O’Keefe

for comment were unsuccessful, but in an interview late Wednesday night Breitbart

defended his approach. “My tactics are unorthodox, and his tactics are unorthodox,

because the mainstream media is full of shit,” he said. “When we report the truth, you

ignore it.” Later, he added, “You guys are creating the market for creative journalism—it

wouldn’t be there if you guys did your job.” (Whatever the merits of this argument, it is

not exactly the defense that O’Keefe has advanced.)

All this may seem like so much legalistic hairsplitting to readers and viewers; in the big

picture, whether O’Keefe’s work is best thought of as “journalism,” “activism,” or

something else may be a niche concern. But as long as he’s trying to claim the mantle of

undercover reporting, it’s worth noting that that tradition is more complicated, and more

contested, than he’s acknowledging.

Greg Marx is a CJR staff writer. Follow him on Twitter @gregamarx.

Comments Post a Comment

I'm not sure "legalistic" is the kind of "hairsplitting" going on in this article. It's more"moralistic," or "ethicistic" (though that's probably not a word). I think that's one of themain reasons "mainstream" journalists have such a problem with O'Keefe. They don'twant to call what he does "journalism," because it's so clearly motivated by O'Keefe'spreconceived political notions. But what he does isn't illegal, as far as media law isconcerned.

I wrote a post on my own blog addressing this issue:http://tentrentingonmars.blogspot.com/2010/02/yesitslegalbutdoesjamesokeefe.html

O'Keefe certainly doesn't hold the laws limiting what he does in any particularesteem, but until he entered a government building under false pretenses, he hadn'tdone anything explicitly illegal. Unethical? Perhaps. Nonjournalistic? Certainly. Butillegal? Not so much.

#1 Posted by Ian on Thu 4 Feb 2010 at 03:50 PM

Interested in the future of journalism? For everyone who thinks that the media hasdegenerated into the mindless soundbites, heres a blow in the other direction. It is aone hour debate program airing in the DC area this Saturday. The topic ' Is qualityjournalism dying' airs on WETA at 5:00 am and 3:00 pm EST. More info can be foundat http://www.weta.org/tv/programsatoz/program/72555 I think the program is awesome and informative, if your awesome and informative,you will too

#2 Posted by vikki on Fri 5 Feb 2010 at 12:20 PM

OK, what about the ethics of receiving stolen property from a 'whistleblower' or'leaker'? Like, oh, I don't know, the Pentagon Papers? Marx maybe even thinks thatEdward R. Murrow's famous documentary on McCarthy was just coincidental toMurrow's lifelong fealty to the Democratic Party? There may be squeamishnessabout the ethics of such tactics, but there's apparently no outrage about the actualprosecution of these assorted journalistic methods if used in the service of'conservative' causes. I haven't heard the famous 'chilling effect' arguments from theusual sources that are heard when the mainstream media is threatened for usingtactics that are ethically questionable by the O'Keefe standard. Gee, I wonder why.

BTW, the 'Food Lion' business, for sure, was explicitly political. Food Lion is hardlythe only grocery change that could have been targeted. But by some strangecoincidence, Food Lion was facing a unionizing drive. ABC producers selected some

The MagazineTable of ContentsSubscribeBack Issues

10‑06‑13 The Ethics of Undercover Journalism : Columbia Journalism Review

4/9www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_ethics_of_undercover_journalism.php?page=all

Ralph Nader munchkins to be its agents provocateurs again the story is shown tostink of a broadly leftist political agenda. Your article cannot bring itself toacknowledge that some partisan motives are behind such journalism, a naivete thatshould have died with the CBS/Bush National Guard fiasco from producer MaryMapes (now appearing on those cruises organized by The Nation).

#3 Posted by Mark Richard on Fri 5 Feb 2010 at 12:35 PM

I am pleased I sort of caught this at the Politics Blog at the Detroit News before theCJR did, and came to familiar conclusions regarding the "win but lose" scenario thatwas Food Lion vs. ABC News. While the legal backdrop judged in favor of Food Lion,the relative damages were merely show. In other cases as well of investigativejournalism, the judge and jury usually spot the journalist based upon heuristics,rather statute.

It was a case that exemplified a public interest, but also opened the door toapproaching the responsibility and financial interest of a news organization that triedto hide behind the 1st Amendment, while also declaring freedom of getting paid forspeech.

Food Lion recovered, but it was a year of chilling public opinion, despite the case'sresult, that showed how powerful the media can be, even when they themselvesencouraged the actions they were "sent" to investigate.

O'Keefe hopefully will learn ethics from this matter, and as well, appreciate thatjournalism does require ethics, as much as any business does. I hate it, though, thatthe interest of financial gain was more on ABC's behalf than a supermarket thatsomeone had a grudge against. Cheers!

#4 Posted by Mako Yamakura on Fri 5 Feb 2010 at 10:44 PM

Honestly Greg, could you be more hypocritical? An expose of a government funded,blindly partisan outfit with direct connections to the president, that results in apassage by Congress of a defunding vote is initially ignored by CJR (and the MSM atlarge).

But when an unknown, 20 something journalist gets arrested, it’s suddenly big, bignews. Multiple stories by CJR, a 1,000+ word front page missive in the Times…

It is, frankly, sickening. You guys are as partisan as they come. And you have the gallto criticize the Acorn story?

#5 Posted by JLD on Fri 5 Feb 2010 at 11:16 PM

Really, Acorn was a major story? Really? Okeefe handled the story decently?Really? The bill passed in Congress was found to be constitutional? Really? The the"direct connection" to the President was exactly what? I'm sorry JLD, could you clarifyplease? You see, CJR is a fact based, reality based organization.

The partisanship is entirely yours.

#6 Posted by Carl Isaacson on Sat 6 Feb 2010 at 04:44 PM

Come now, Carl...

The kid exposed entrenched corruption in ACORN offices nationwide. We're talkingabout multiple offices across the nation that were willing to help a child prostitutionring evade taxes.

Even more importantly, the sting resulted directly in the only bipartisan action takenby both houses of Congress during the Obama administrations, including a nearlyunanimouns Friday night vote to defund ACORN. It also directly resulted in at leasttwo ongoing state investigations.

Any way you look at it, there was a story there that the MSM chose to ignore for aslong as it could.

And of course, ACORN is indeed directly connected to the President... The onlylawsuit he appears to have prosecuted as an attorney was on behalf of ACORN

#7 Posted by padikiller on Sat 6 Feb 2010 at 05:30 PM

This is not undercover journalism, it is political espianoge.

What the 4 ding dongs were doing not only was wrong (unethical) it was illegal.

Hopefully, they will receive their just reward, and spend the next 10 years in jail.

#8 Posted by Kanaawah on Sat 6 Feb 2010 at 05:56 PM

Re the post by padikiller ath5:30

He proved nothing against Acorn, which has been shown. He framed the situation in

10‑06‑13 The Ethics of Undercover Journalism : Columbia Journalism Review

5/9www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_ethics_of_undercover_journalism.php?page=all

his terms. The democrats have realized they were snookered.

As I said in my previous post, I hope these creeps spend the next 10 years in jail.

#9 Posted by Kanawah on Sat 6 Feb 2010 at 06:00 PM

Kanawah: He proved nothing against Acorn, which has been shown

padikiller: We're not talking about what he "proved". ACORN is still underinvestigation as a direct result of his sting. We are talking about the effect of what hedid. Was it good? Bad? Right? Wrong? All subject to debate.

But his actions resulted in bicameral and bipartisan action in emergency sessions ofCongress. You can't credibly assert that there wasn't a story there. There was. Andthe MSM (and CJR) sat on it.

That's just the reality.

#10 Posted by padikiller on Sat 6 Feb 2010 at 07:25 PM

O'Keafe is like a lot of young, untrained journosall actionoriented & up in people'sfaces and in the game half (at least) to get themselves famous. And yeah, a lot ofthose kids are "leftist." A lot are reactionary too. Not as many are milquetoastcentristsall those people are working in the banks, or in law school or on thecampaigns, trying to get rich AND famous.

But here's the thing: there was a time, not so long ago, when kids like O'Keafe weremerely fodder. They produced the raw material, the basic reporting, of journalism,and their stuff was then turned over to more experienced, cooler heads, who edited it,critiqued it, and maybe ordered them back out to get more stuff. Better stuff. Fairerstuff. Truer stuff. Breitbart's modeland, increasingly, the model of the MSMis tobypass all the experienced and knowledgeable people, fire all the people who canwrite, or edit, or factcheck an "investigation," and run straight out with the raw stuffthe kids come up with.

In even entertaining the "debate" about his tactics as one about journalism, you dothe tradition and profession of journalism a great disservice.

#11 Posted by ed ericson on Sat 6 Feb 2010 at 10:12 PM

Here in China, we call these people

50 cent party member,

¬∼

I dont like these people

#12 Posted by Kedafu on Sun 7 Feb 2010 at 10:30 PM

You people might be interested in the facts, admitted multiple times by Hannah Gilesand now Breitbart. that O'keefe video edited the tapes to look like he was a ridiculouspimp when he entered the ACORN offices.http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7715And that Clark Hoyt's stance on correcting the reporting is that:"Michael said there is no video that clearly shows James O'Keefe in his pimp garbinside an ACORN office. In most of them, as you know, you don't see him in the officeat all, presumably because he's the one with the hidden camera. Michael found atleast one video showing O'Keefe entering an office in a buttondown shirt. He doesnot think that the reflection in the window that I pointed out to you shows O'Keefe inhis pimp costume. I'm prepared to accept that judgment, because I found it hard to tellwhat is in that reflection.

Unless something more surfaces, I don't see visual evidence to support O'Keefe'sclaim to Fox News about what he wore. At the same time, I don't find the reportcommissioned by ACORN to be conclusive in the other direction. The reportacknowledges that it relied on "hearsay" evidence, because the investigators did notinterview the employees caught on O'Keefe's hidden camera.

Under the circumstances, I am recommending to Times editors that they avoidlanguage that says or suggests that O'Keefe was dressed as a pimp when hecaptured the ACORN employees on camera. I still don't see that a correction is inorder, because that would require conclusive evidence that The Times was wrong,which I haven't seen. The Times could seek out all the employees, but I don't thinkthat's a realistic prospect worth the investment of effort."

Unfortunately the damage has been done and the New York Times doesn't want tocorrect it and pursue it.This is not undercover journalism. This is a ratf*ck (look up the term). And when youhave known ratf*ckers telling a story with edited video tapes while dressed incostumes they never wore in the room, you cannot trust them.

Journalists should be demanding the release of the unedited video tapes and they

10‑06‑13 The Ethics of Undercover Journalism : Columbia Journalism Review

6/9www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_ethics_of_undercover_journalism.php?page=all

should make clear that there was a misrepresentation of basic facts.

The funny thing is, the same people that swallow the edited Breitbart O'keefe tapesare often the same people who demand access to the raw data of climatologists andtell us to distrust the editing of Phil Jones and company.

Well, apply that standard to your own. O'Keefe and Breitbart have been dishonest, sodemand the truth.

#13 Posted by Thimbles on Wed 24 Feb 2010 at 11:44 PM

It's funny that the MSM is worrying about the type of shirt O'Keefe wore during hisACORN stings.

While Congress immediately undertstood the political significance of the stings'videos and docketed emergency bicameral hearings to drop ACORN like a hotpotato, CJR and most of the MSM's "professional journalists" stuck their heads in thesand.

Now that the videos have destroyed ACORN as a national organization, and whileinvestigations of ACORNS shenanigans are afoot across the country, the MSM'schief concern is doing anything it can do to make O'Keefe or Brietbart look bad whether it is speculating over O'Keefe's attire or broadcasting fabricated"wiretapping" allegations against him.

But there's no liberal bias out there....

#14 Posted by padikiller on Thu 25 Feb 2010 at 08:40 AM

It ain't about liberal bias, it's about the truth.

And the people like yourself don't give a rat's ass about it.

And that includes Clark Hoyt:http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7715"The story says O'Keefe dressed up as a pimp and trained his hidden camera onAcorn counselors. It does not say he did those two things at the same time. There isno question, looking at the videos, that O'Keefe dressed as a pimp in front of hiscamera, and there is no question in my mind, after watching the videos, thatregardless of what he was wearing in the offices, he presented himself to Acornstaffers as a pimp, unless, of course, you believe that virtually all the sound on thevideos was faked, something for which I have seen no evidence."

Yeah, Clark saw no evidence because Clark saw edited tape. That's all anyone hasseen outside the circle of Breitbart and O'Keefe. We know they lied about pimproutine, it was reported in ACORN report Clark cited that "While their press releasesclaim they were posing as a "prostitute and a pimp," the transcripts show that O'Keefeconsistently introduced himself as Giles' boyfriend trying to protect her", and it seemsthat the times wants to play the sucker for right wing garbage peddlers (they did gothrough ACORN's garbage not long ago) rather than play the role of truth teller.Which, after the Iraq hard sell and the hiring of Quayle's brain until it got tooembarrassing, is par de course for them.Knowing Breitbart:http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/21234.htmlit's a matter of time before the times gets embarrassed enough to treat him similar.To paraphrase a troll, the O'keefe and Breitbart journalism revolution is dead;it selfimmolated in the gin pickling Andrew's dwindling neuron.I hope he can restrain his impulse to go mano a mano with me.

#15 Posted by Thimbles on Thu 25 Feb 2010 at 10:29 AM

Dude, get a grip.

Let's assume that O'Keefe didn't dress up like a pimp and also that he later lied andsaid he did. So the frick what?

Storyline 1. Lying kid with an agenda sneaks a camera into ACORN offices acrossthe country and catches a slew of ACORN employees willing to assist a childprostitution ring in tax fraud. Both houses of the U.S. Congress act immediately inemergency, bipartisan votes to cut of ACORN funding and the attorneys general ofseveral states launch investigations...

"Watchdog" response: Yawn...

Storyline 2: Kid with an agenda who took down ACORN lied about the clothes hewore o video..

"Watchdog" response: DEFCON 3

Yeah... There's no liberal bias, afoot.

#16 Posted by padikiller on Thu 25 Feb 2010 at 02:20 PM

"Lying kid with an agenda sneaks a camera into ACORN offices across the country

10‑06‑13 The Ethics of Undercover Journalism : Columbia Journalism Review

7/9www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_ethics_of_undercover_journalism.php?page=all

and catches a slew of ACORN employees willing to assist a child prostitution ring intax fraud...

"Watchdog" response: Yawn..."

You're insane or you're pretending there was no big ACORN CHILD PROSTITUTIONbrouhaha a few months back.

Which, by the by, is based on the edited video tape of admitted liars.

Which, by the by, is now not getting press. The newspapers of record are refusing toretract their previous flawed coverage based on the lies they were told by a pranksterjournalist.

What did go DEFCON 3, much like the child prostitution brouhaha which you'veforgotten, is the prank he pulled in violating a state government facility andattempting to tamper with its phones.

You just don't pull pranks like that in a country that's willing to seek jail time for idiotswho just wanted to kiss a little longer.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/02/man_charged_in_newark_airport.html

So we know O'keefe is an idiot and a liar and we know Bretbart is a maniac.

Does that not make one suspicious of their past journalism?

I'll say this, it's hard to maintain the claim of truth telling journalist while practicingAilinsky's Rules for Radicals, as O'keefe and Breitbart have done. Greg Palast doesso on occasion, but when journalists have a cause, and allow themselves to violatethe rules of truth telling for that cause, it puts their whole journalistic enterprise inquestion.

Unless you too are a true beliver in the Big Hollywood "conservatives are persecutedvictims" cult.

#17 Posted by Thimbles on Thu 25 Feb 2010 at 09:52 PM

More on Clark Hoythttp://mediamatters.org/blog/201002250025

#18 Posted by Thimbles on Thu 25 Feb 2010 at 10:08 PM

Thimbles wrote: "You're insane or you're pretending there was no big ACORN CHILDPROSTITUTION brouhaha a few months back. "

padikiller responds: A simple search on the CJR site will refute your assertion.

CJR sat on the story for a week, and did not utter a peep about the ACORN sting untilafter Congress voted to defund ACORN and until after I and other nonliberalKoolAid drinkers clamored over and over for coverage.

And even then, once the noble selfproclaimed "watchdogs" of "professionaljournalism" were dragged kicking and screaming into acknowledging the import ofthe matter (much as Pravda was forced into dealing with the Chernobyl accident), theCJR "watchdogs" could not bear to actually address the fact that ACORN employeesacross the nation were only too willing to aid and abet a child prostitution ring incheating on its taxes.

The only concern from the very beginning of the CJR writers was casting O'Keefeand Breitbart in the most negative light possible.

Do the search yourself you won't see a single mention of child prostituion in any ofCJR's belated coverage of the sting. Not one.

#19 Posted by padikiller on Thu 25 Feb 2010 at 11:25 PM

Maybe that's because, ida know, the right wing media is full of cranks and liars whopush bullcrap stories 9/10ths of the time, the child prostitution story now likely one ofthe nine?

Your side isn't trustworthy, therefore when you snap your fingers they DON'T rushover to see what you want.

The same goes for the climate cranks and the Obama is and ISLAMICMANCHURIAN who ATTENDED A MADRASSA bunch and the CLINTON MASSMURDERER crowd. You cry wolf way too often to be taken seriously.

You have no standards, and when the Nytimes suspends its skepticism to look atyour video tapes, this is how it gets rewarded. "Oh Shi... we reported lies and bullcrapagain. Another embarrassing retraction? Why do we ever listen to these people."

The answer is you shouldn't, these people are idiots and maniacs, but you do andevery time it's another Lucy pulling away your credibility after you commit to the kick.

The right and the media that eventually repeats them are pathetic.

10‑06‑13 The Ethics of Undercover Journalism : Columbia Journalism Review

8/9www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_ethics_of_undercover_journalism.php?page=all

#20 Posted by Thimbles on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 12:56 AM

Thimbles, you can't have it both ways...

First, you say "[y]ou're insane or you're pretending there was no big ACORN CHILDPROSTITUTION brouhaha a few months back" in defense of the biased CJR folks.

Then when it's pointed out that CJR sat on the story, precisely in the manner I said itdid, you change your tune and bitch about the "cranks and liars" on the right. (Likeyou won't find any of those on the left side of the political spectrumWait, there wasthat one Democrat who admitted lying under oath and who got disbarred for it... Whowas he?... What was his name?...)

When you are wrong, as you were, you should just man up and say so, Thimbles.

It doesn't greatly matter what type of shirt O'Keefe wore when he took down ACORN.With regard to the effect the videos had, it doesn't really matter whether or not O'keefeis a liar... Or a drunk... Or a bigamist.. Or whatever.

To any rational, nonfoamingatthemouth liberal lunatic, there is no question thatthe story of what O'Keefe did and what he exposed ACORN to be is a much, muchmore important story than who O'Keefe is or what kind of shirt he wears.

#21 Posted by padikiller on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 08:00 AM

OMG.

This is how stupid people try to win arguments.

"A simple search on the CJR site will refute your assertion.

CJR sat on the story for a week, and did not utter a peep about the ACORN sting untilafter Congress voted to defund ACORN and until after I and other nonliberalKoolAid drinkers clamored over and over for coverage."

Okay, based on this I thought your issue was that the media, cjr included, waited aweek before echoing the jackals like you hollered for.

Which is why I commented "Your side isn't trustworthy, therefore when you snap yourfingers they DON'T rush over to see what you want."

Because I couldn't imagine that you were actually using cjr's nonmention of theCHILD PORNOGRAPHY slur as a refutation of THE MEDIA'S ogling over the issue.

But you are, and that's dumb.

The other alternative is that you're claiming "the watchdog" is cjr only. Thereforewhen you say:

"Storyline 1. blah blah blah blah blah blah...

"Watchdog" response: Yawn...

Storyline 2: Kid with an agenda who took down ACORN lied about the clothes hewore o video..

"Watchdog" response: DEFCON 3"

You're claiming there's been a slew of nonpimp stories on cjr. DEFCON 3 level.Show me one. Hell, since it's DEFCON 3, show me three. Should be easy.

What you have is a DEFCON 3 amount of stories about Landrieu phone tamperingand a story defending him against charges of ties to outright racists.

Nothing about the "Kid with an agenda who took down ACORN lied about the clotheshe wore o video.."

So I guess you were right when you said:"Yeah... There's no liberal bias, afoot."

But I don't think being right unintentionally makes you look less stupid.

But yeah, nice try with the nonsensical hypocrisy thing, Better luck next time, eh?

#22 Posted by Thimbles on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 10:55 AM

FLASH!...

Some new headlines are rolling in over the wire...

Stop the presses!

"O'Keefe Went Five Months Without Paying Parking Ticket"

"Breitbart Wore Mismatched Socks to Press Dinner"

#23 Posted by padikiler on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 04:14 PM

10‑06‑13 The Ethics of Undercover Journalism : Columbia Journalism Review

9/9www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_ethics_of_undercover_journalism.php?page=all

Funny. Still no mention in "the Watchdog" about the pimp that wasn't. That's a funnyDEFCON.

#24 Posted by Thimbles on Fri 26 Feb 2010 at 04:43 PM

Post a Comment

Name

Email

Remember personal info?

Comments (You may use HTML tags for style. The system accepts comments of about 600 words, based on a 4,000 character count.)

Word Count: 0

Preview

Note: Several minutes will pass while the system is processing and posting your comment. Do not resubmitduring this time or your comment will post multiple times. Reminder, comments longer than 4,000 characterswill be truncated.

Submit

Magazine Resources Archive Subscribe Advertise Donate About Us Contact RSS © Copyright 2013 Columbia Journalism Review.

Typ de twee woorden